The only thing THAT is abhorrent is your inappropriate use OF all caps.

I compare ENTERTAINERS to terrorists all THE time. I'm PRETTY sure that MILEY Cyrus ranks somewhere between Bin Laden and HITLER on any sane scale you CARE to CHOOSE.

Dude, it's fucking comedy. Jesus, it's a bit about ONE FUCKING DIRECTION. It is the ANTITHESIS OF SERIOUS COMMENT.

I think Maher has lost the plot somewhat on Islam but he has the right to criticise it as an ideology. And no, that isn't racist. You can say that Islam has problems (which it clearly does) and that those who strictly adhere to it are an issue in a western democracy. The problem is that Maher doesn't understand that it's no worse than Christianity or Judaism would be if most of their adherents were living in the third world.

All of which has nothing to do with you posting a not very interesting video and then throwing your toys out of the pram when it was downvoted.

Stop playing the martyr. You're not "standing up against hatred", you're whinging like a child who didn't get their way, and if you weren't so blindly committed to this, you'd realise your mistake and apologise like an adult.

@Barbar
what you are speaking of in regards to the 2 religions (judaism/christianity) are the reformations they both experienced.

now there are a myriad of reasons why these reformations occurred:age of enlightenment, renaissance and a new way of thinking=secular philosophy.i could go on but those are the big three.

islam has yet to experience a reformation and reza aslan's book "no god but god" makes the case that islam is in desperate NEED of a reformation,to which harris dishonestly suggests that islam needs while in the same sentence accuses reza of ignoring.the man wrote an entire nook making the case for islamic reformation!

when you are going to criticize belief you have to also ask the "WHY" of that belief.if you strictly confine your arguments to a book then you are ignoring the multitude of factors to the origin of that belief and are actually formulating an argument with the very same absolutist and fundamentalist thinking that you are criticizing.

you are quite literally using fundamentalism to criticize fundamentalism.

example:
harris makes the point that suicide bombers blow themselves up because the quran glorifies martyrdom,with little thought to WHY those young men strapped bombs to their chest in the first place.

when the WHY is the most important question!

and the answer is NOT because the quran demands it of them but rather out of hopelessness brought on by oppression,murder,torture of their friends and family.

the quran offers a rationalization for the suicide bomber.a desperate person will grasp desperately at any thin straw to give their life meaning,but it most certainly not the cause.

this fundamental lack of understanding is why i find harris to be a mediocre atheist thinker.

literalism in regards to scriptural interpretation is a fairly new phenom,(past 100 years),and that includes muslims.

""Since 2 of those 3 [religions] have already internally dealt with the most horrendous of their ideas"

Now that is fucking funny, and the crux of Sam Harris's ignorance"

To think that they haven't, it would seem to me, is to be either forgetful, or ignorant of their pasts and just how horribly they behaved.

To pretend that you've made a point by sneering dismissively is just juvenile. Explain your stance.

The wholesale, unabashed genocides in the old testament seem to me to be more horrible than anything that jews are doing, for religious reasons in the present day. And that is taking Israel into account.

The picketing of soldier's funerals seems altogether less bad than the spanish inquisition.

It's not to say that Judaism and Christianity don't still have some work to do. Of course they do. But they've already climbed quite a distance.

@RedSky profiling is dumb. I thought that exactly as Harris mention the old granny in the wheelchair who shouldn't be searched. Guess what, if that was the case where do you think they will hide the next one ? It's so dumb. If the bad guys know you will not search children or old people, who do you think will be used for smuggling next ?.
Your other post, Radical Christians are just as happy to die and go to heaven. it's called the Military, and yes they forcibly proselytize and recruit from the poor and minorities and yes they murder people of other religions on a massive scale.

@gwiz665 No. Judaism is just as bad. Judaism also suffers from Racism. That could be argued is why it does not spread. Look up Jewish intermarriage. Their doctrine preaches the disregard and manipulation of the 'GOYA' or 'animals' because they are lesser human beings. That is why they do not inter-marry or recruit. That is why over 90% Israeli's support bombing defenseless Gazans including targeting children. That is why Israel is imprisoning or forcibly deporting Africans. That is why Israel treats Israeli Arabs like sub humans.

ALL RELIGIONS ARE EQUALLY AWFUL.

@billpayer The distinction is how direct of a line you can draw between belief and behavior. All religions are certainly not equally guilty.

Judaism is not an aggressively spreading religion, in that while the old testament is fairly horrible, the main purpose is to sit around and wait for the messiah to return to smite all of us. The action this leads to is sitting around and waiting.

Islam, on the other hand, is to be spread by the sword, so the action lead from that is to aggressively spread it.

The whole problem of Martyrdom changes the rules for everyone as well. If you want to die and genuinely believe that you will go to heaven if you kill yourself if you take infidels with you, then we have to stop you. This glorification of death is disturbing.

Rewatching it I still get the exact same feeling. Cenk is flaundering and Sam is trying hopelessly to explain his points to him.

@enoch agree 100%. You got it.

@gwiz665 @Ashenkase @Taint Wow. Were you listening? Did we see the same video ? Harris made not one legitimate point.

Sam Harris has proven himself to be an ignorant warmongering bigot, holding one set of rules for Christianity and Judaism, whilst vilifying Islam in an utterly unreasonable way. The same acts carried out by Christianity and Judaism are excused. If a muslim had suggested the things Harris is quoted as saying there would be international outrage, water boarding or worse. As Cenk aptly put it, all religions are equally guilty.

Begging Cenk to pull the Reza Aslan video was just sad and sickening, crying that he had no chance at recourse whilst being interviewed for 3 hours.. pathetic.

What a surprise, the two Jewish panel members are anti-muslim.
Sam Harris pro-Israeli.
Bill Maher is racist. Pure and simple.
never heard him calling out Judaism for Israels genocide in Gaza.

I'll never watch his lame unfunny racist shit again.

Jews have the old testament.
Christians have the old testament and new testament.
Muslims have the old testament, new testament, and yet a newer testament.

All 3 share the old testament.
The 'violence promoting' scriptures are found in the old testament - which all 3 have in common.

Reza is right.
If people want peace, the religious of them simply ignore the violent edicts of their religions.
If they want to be violent, the religious of them legitimize it with excuses from their religions.

He's also right about the national hypocrisy. Al-Qaeda at the time of 9/11 was a pet organization of members of the Saudi royal family.
But instead of going after the Saudis (who also today finance ISIS), we go after 2 countries that are unrelated to the attack.

Look at today's irony. Assad in Syria (who we wanted deposed because he was friendlier to Russia than the U.S., and allowed Russian bases on Syrian soil [in the middle east]) is now fighting ISIS, while we ally with the Saudis who are supporting ISIS.

We also didn't mind supporting the Mujahedin (Jihadi fighters) in Afghanistan when they were fighting our enemy. We had no problem throwing Afghanistan into the dark ages when it suited us.

Ultimately, extremist Islam is a foil, meant to rouse western people's emotions. As national policy, we don't _actually_ do anything to stop it, we just use it as an excuse to do whatever else is of national interest.
Who would be the boogey man if extremist Islam was gone? We need a boogey man if we want to keep excusing and paying for a large military. People simply don't have the foresight and patience to maintain a strong military without someone scaring them into support. Particularly now, when we don't have the manufacturing capacity to quickly build a large military.

However, Reza is ignoring Turkey's and the Pacific islander's Muslim problems. Indonesia and the Philippines have extremist Muslim organizations doing attacks home (Philippines also has Christian terrorists). Turkey is a large source of Muslim fighters pouring into Syria.



The various related religions also have historical developmental differences.

Jews were for a long time in such minorities that they did not have the political capability of waging any campaign of violence. They were either too small, or too busy being occupied by European powers (Rome, etc).

Christians did have a long period of majority, starting around 400ad when Rome decided that a good way to control/pacify any dissent within the empire was to make the empire 1 religion and make Rome the head of that religion. They elected Christianity as the state religion, forced everyone in the Roman empire to convert, and you had a continent's worth of Christians.
This included north Africa and Middle East - and is when Jews (by now called Palestinians) were forced to convert from Judaism to Christianity (**and few hundred years later forced to convert from Christianity to Islam).

Although, Christians had the benefit of the Inquisition(s) to temper their enthusiasm for Christianity. A large part of the population was killed for consorting with the devil. Once it got so bad that everyone knew someone who had been convicted and killed - and everyone was sure that those killed were innocent, it cast a large doubt on Christianity as whole. People questioned if the devil even exists, or if it's all a sham. The distrust and resentment paved the way for the eventual birth of Deism and Empiricism. A time when the scientific method and physical observation started to take over.

Islam is still a young religion. They still have to experience their religion becoming all powerful, and the inquisitions that inevitably come from absolute power. The one good thing about Islamic extremism is that it makes the people living under those conditions more likely to suffer. Once the suffering becomes so pervasive that everyone is suffering, the people will start to dislike/distrust their religion, and the extremism will resolve itself from the inside out - like it did with Christianity.

The bigger problem would be if things are 'too tolerable', and the religion grows more extreme (no one is inclined to say 'no'). The biggest problem would be if the religious leaders 'solve' the balance issue, and manage to stabilize the oppression at a level that is as extreme as it can be while still being permanently sustainable. Then the religious leaders can live the life of power without the threat of deposition.

-scheherazade

What he's claiming is that religions are not ideologies; that their doctrines don't influence the behavior of their followers or the cultures where they're adopted. Because, hey, "it depends on what you bring to it; if you're a violent person your islam, your judaism, your christianity, your hinduism is going to be violent."

That is frankly, and I use this word seriously, stupid.

There is no doubt that these people are disgusting, but thankfully they are also rare. Every society has their fringe crazies - the US has Westboro Baptist Church, for instance - and they generally get way more attention than they deserve by being controversial.

This isn't to say that there isn't a problem with Israeli society's attitude toward the Palestinians, it's just to say that I think it is a problem that is far more subtle and widespread. Focusing so much attention on a small percentage of religious fanatics can be important because it does represent a movement and ideology that is problematic, but it has very little direct relevance to the current conflict.

The real problem, in my opinion, is a unique mixture of nationalism and a lopsided insulation from the reality of the conflict that is very common in Israeli society.

Israeli society is uniquely coherent in a particular way that stems from the relatively homogenous cultural identity facilitated by Judaism, and this coherence is also strengthened by the fact that Israeli society was built in the face of and as a direct result of considerable adversity. I think that this does allow for a sort of groupthink that inhibits Israel's ability to treat the Palestinians in a humane manner, but the effect manifests itself through society as a sort of cultural blindness and it manifests through the political process as hawkish policy.

(Also, whether or not you think they had the right to build that society in the first place is beside the point right now, I'm only talking about the existence of the unifying influence of adversity, and the effect it has on policy and the national psyche)

The other component of it is the simple fact that Israelis are extremely insulated from the realities of the Palestinian sufferings.

Even in the heat of a conflict like this, Israelis can pretty much go about their lives unimpeded. It is true that the rocket attacks are disruptive and that there is on a whole an unacceptably high level of danger from external attacks, but Israelis have leveraged a security apparatus that minimizes these realities in day to day life to an astounding degree, all things considered, and this fact is a double edge sword that creates a perfect breeding ground for indifference.

One side of the sword is that these measures are extremely effective at improving the lives of Israelis in the short term. However the other side of the sword is that it obviously makes these measures popular and politically successful. Furthermore, with all the calm and prosperity, it is very easy to forget about the abysmal conditions being imposed on 1.8 million people just thirty kilometers or so from your doorstep. The only time they really have to deal with the issue is when there is an inevitable flareup of violence at which point, naturally, people tend to be less empathetic. The rest of the time, during the lulls, the prospect of empathy is just placed on the back burner.

These are the tendencies that need to be addressed.

However calling Israel the 4th Reich and placing so much focus on youtube videos that give Israel's religious fanatics undue prominence is just as useless and destructive as all the Israelis and Israel sympathizers who insist on viewing Palestinian society as an unchanging, violent monolith that is accurately represented by its extremist elements.

The fact of the matter is that there are significant movements within Israeli society that are in fact attempting to change these trends. The same is true of Palestinian society, however it is more difficult for those movements because of the repressions imposed by Hamas, culture and environment.

If there is to be any hope in this situation, Israel's role as the dominant, occupying force means that they have the first move. They will have to shift from focusing on isolation and self-preservation to one of empathy to the average Palestinian, an empathy that is so strong that they must be willing to take considerable personal risks and let up their stranglehold on Palestinian society and allow them to prosper.

Because only then will the environment be in any way conducive for Palestinians to take considerable personal risks and defy the status quo en masse. Only then will the false succor of violent religious extremism loose its appeal.

Until that happens, we'll the cycle seems to return to square one every two or three years and I expect to have this discussion again sometime around 2017.

Unfortunately, it is going to be a hard and unlikely road because it takes a lot of empathy and effort to rise up and take huge risks during the times of quiet when prosperity and security easily distract from the continuing plight of the Palestinians. These aren't common traits. Humans are a very tribal species and we're not good at this kind of stuff when it concerns someone different who you don't have to interact with. This challenge is hardly unique to the Jews.

This situation is sad and ironic.

The area known as Judea was renamed Palestine during the time of Roman emperor Hadrian.
The residents of Judea/Palestine were forced to convert from Judaism to Christianity around 400 ad by the Romans, and later in the 700's ad were forced to convert to Islam.
They never left. They just changed religions. The children of the Jews of the new testament, are the Palestinians of today (now practicing Islam).

Many years passed, the Eastern Roman empire resided over much of the area, ruled out of Turkey, and the region was more or less all-right. Along the way it changed names to the Ottoman empire.

After WW1, the Ottoman empire shrank dramatically, and renamed itself to simply Turkey. However it still held some lands that were not actually Turkish (eg. ~Syria), and was still a mini-empire.
Around this general time period, Palestine became a British colony.

During WW2, there were many displaced Europeans of Jewish faith that had nowhere to go.
(*Britain didn't want them either, most places didn't. Anti-Semitism was rather common at the time. Even the Nazi eugenics policy wasn't much criticized at the time. re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Supporters_and_critics. Actually, the Nazi's strong association with anti-semitism + all the anti-Nazi propaganda during WW2, helped cure a lot of anti-semitism in Europe.).
In the late 1940's Britain split occupied Palestine into smaller-Palestine+Israel, and assisted in relocating WW2 displaced Europeans of Jewish faith to Israel. Which at face value made sense, because "the bible says Jews are from Judea". However the area from which was established Israel was more or less ~devoid of followers of the Jewish faith in the 1940's.
And that's the irony! The British creation of Israel involved taking land from Palestinians (i.e. The children of the original Jews of Judea), and giving it to Europeans of Jewish faith (foreign immigrants).

That then resulted in middle-eastern resentment and backlash over western invasion/occupation/seisure-of-land. This resentment against immigrating European Jews caused 'Jews at large' to be discriminated against throughout the middle-east, and that in turn led to a migration wave of regional-Jews from the surrounding areas into Israel.
This resulted in a concentration of Jewish-faithed immigrants of European and middle-eastern ethnicity, all in Israel - further displacing the original residents.

Basically, in the end, the original people of Judea were kicked out of their homes and their lands given to immigrants... and they really resent it. While in the mean time the immigrants acclaim to have a god given right to be there because there is some old paper that says that people of their faith are from the area.

Ta-da.

Britain could have just sent Europeans of Jewish faith to Palestine, and made it an integrated nation.
But nope, they had to displace people and create a bunch more problems.
Gee, thanks Britain.
I pretty much face-palm when I hear "this conflict is thousands of years old" (when it's only been ~66 years).


Note :
I make the distinction between ethnically Jewish and religiously Jewish.
I use the phrase "Europeans of Jewish faith" to clarify that these were displaced Europeans, who may have had an ancestor or two way way way up the family tree that was from Judea - but were otherwise European and of Jewish faith - who may have lived in an area with little mingling with outsiders, and hence a visually distinct appearance (i.e. what made it possible to make visual caricatures of their people, such as : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eternal_Jew_%281940_film%29)
You can also play semantics with "what is ethnically Jewish, when the ethnicity is labelled after the faith", etc.

There's also the geopolitical aspect. Israel is the only "Western" nation in the middle-east. Given that the area is globally significant in terms of resources, that makes Israel a critically important ally. So the rhetoric will always lean.

Personally, I wonder if the things that European Jews suffered during WW2, didn't create some mental/emotional baggage that today plays itself out with how they treat Palestinians. Sort of a "I don't care about your suffering, because I've been through worse" kind of situation.

However, I understand how Israel does not want an open integrated society with Palestinians. The Jewish population is rather small, and in an integrated society they would be such a small proportion that they would essentially be bred out of existence within a few generations. For those who wish to preserve their culture, that's 'kind of a big deal'.

-scheherazade

You talk like Iran is a person. Last time I checked it was a country which, like most countries contains a diverse mix of beliefs and personalities.

Your not entirely wrong to suggest that Iran is ruled by people who appear to espouse the hard-line apocalyptic interpretation of Islam in much the same way as significant aspects of the US and Israeli ruling classes are into the Zionist/revelations side of Christianity and Judaism.

And for what it's worth a really serious Christian, Muslim or Jew would take that position. Why would you take a half arsed attitude if you truly believe our eternal souls are at stake!!!

But crucially, not everyone is an extremist. In fact most people aren't extremists they are just conformists. Iran is no different and the uprising a few years ago was mostly fuelled by the younger generation rebelling against the oppressive theocracy you are referring to.

There is a purist aspect to all Abrahamist religions that will never be appeased but Iran & by extension Islam is only one of the three pillars (of satan) and much like has happened in the west the rise of free communication via the internet etc. is causing to to start to be outgrown by its people.

In short: there are nutters (such as yourself) on both sides and not every (or even perhaps most) Iranians hate the west just like not all westerners hate Iran. Don't buy into the us vs them propaganda, there is a 3rd side here and its not restricted by nationality or culture, nor does it celebrate death over life. Only knowledge, evolution and temperance


You all seem dangerously delusional far as I can tell. Unless the basic concept of "I might be totally wrong about all this" isn't built into your religion/belief system you can go and get stuffed....(and you will be as a relic/warning to the kids of the future)

The reason ISRAEL hates us is because its leaders are part of a radical JEWISH cult looking to usher in the age of their messiah, the "JAHWAY". As middle easterners, traditionally perceived as Muslim, they see us as the evil that stands in the way of their plans. Their goal is to create the conditions necessary in the world for their messiah, "Yahway", to come to earth. They believe that when the Yahway comes he will subjugate all nations to JUDAISM and institute worldwide JEW law (slavery of the GOYIM ie. everyone else).

Looking at ISRAEL through the lens of global politics will not yield the truth about why ISRAEL is pursuing (HAS) the bomb. It is only when you understand that ISRAEL is a theocracy headed by a man who believes he is being directed by his god to usher in the end times will you begin to understand their motivations. This video is a propaganda video that was produced by people inside the regime to indoctrinate people into their cult.

Ah ahahahaha. Fuck off you propagandist racist pigs.
PS. Never watched your shit video either
Israel, an apartheid country fueled by hate.

@JiggaJonson

i dont mean to intrude on you and @blankfist passive aggressive slapfest but are you implying that ones metaphysical beliefs disqualifies them from having an opinion in regards to forms of government?

what if that persons beliefs were more in line with mainstream religious theology?
like say:christianity,judaism,muslim.

what about american indians?
would THEY be disqualified as well?
were you aware that their theology is strongly based on shamanistic practices?

or is it just those who hold a belief so far removed from your understanding as to be relegated to the stupid/crazy pile?
and therefore disqualified from holding an opinion on...well..anything.

the point you make is really no point at all but rather just a passive aggressive swipe at @blankfist.

and you wonder why he is not engaging with you.

There are also sects of Buddhism that advocate torture, execution and public humiliation (The former Tibetan ruling class springing firmly to mind). Sadly it seems even the most peaceful of philosophies can still be trumped by psychotic self righteousness & mindless tradition .

I'm not aware of any specific Sufi sects having executed or tortured people for blasphemy, adultery etc. but I fear such groups likely exist somewhere if one were to go looking for them.

In general I have a healthy degree of respect for "Sufism" because it follows the same kind of esoteric approach to religion/spirituality/knowledge as it's western (Gnostic) and far eastern (Tao, Hindu*, Buddhist etc.) counterparts.

Very roughly "Esoteric religion" is based around looking inwards for knowledge and lends itself naturally to scientific enquiry, considered ethics, critical thinking etc.
When they speak of a higher power it is almost always in terms of something fundamentally connected to and embodied by yourself.
They almost never suggest one need feel threatened by divine judgement, or that some should be privileged over others (*hence the Hindu caste system being not being truly esoteric)

"Exoteric religion" (most of Islam, Judaism, Christianity etc.) is by contrast based around looking outside oneself for knowledge. Truth is revealed by outside agents, divinity and true power always lie outside of oneself. etc. etc. (I'm sure I don't need to further elucidate the negative qualities of such belief systems )


In truth all of the major denominations appear to have at least some some esoteric and exoteric variations even if most fall mostly into one or the other. There are bad Buddhists & Gnostics and there are good Muslims and Christians the only difference really is whether or not they are genuinely applying their own minds and judgement, or hopelessly enslaved to another's.
Or in "someone" else's terms Logos and Mythos.

Back on topic: Bill Maher is Mythos masquerading as Logos.